0* Warning: here Lepton EDM (LEDM)

1* Constraints from LEDMs on slepton masses

2* LEDMs from RGE-induced CPV Sources

- See-Saw

- See-Saw + minSU(5)

- Semi-Realistic SO(10)

3* Outlook

EDMs as probes of SUSYEDMs as probes of SUSY

Isabella Masina (CERN)

OUTLINE:

potentially observable

LFV!

adim coupl of NP with lept encodes F&CP

violationse.m.chargechir flip

NP mass scale loop factor

1-loop NP

Beyond SM & ALL from DIPOLE OPERATORBeyond SM & ALL from DIPOLE OPERATORBeyond SM & ALL from DIPOLE OPERATORBeyond SM & ALL from DIPOLE OPERATOR

lep-slept misalignment

SUSY

Loops w/ Sleptons & Gauginos

SUSYSUSYSUSYSUSY

FCFC

Mass Insertion: Mass Insertion:

FC FVFV

Expansion in powers of the FV ’s

No canc: pr lim in mSugra in susy region preferred by gwith tg=10No canc: pr lim in mSugra in susy region preferred by gwith tg=10

FC FVFV

de Arg2x10-3

|LL21 | 10-3->e

Imae/mR0.2 Im (LLmlRR)eem10-

5

[For more details see e.g.: IM&Savoy, ph/0211283]

|RR21 | 10-2 -1)

d@10-23ecm Arg10-1 - Im (LLmlRR)m10-

1

FC FVFV

Measure of d = scaling violation

would need d@2x10-25 ecm

Scaling de/me=d/m Scaling violation (in

general)

->e

de

|LL21 | 10-3

Arg2x10-3 Imae/mR0.2

Focus on CPV sources which violate scaling

|RR21 | 10-2 -1)

[For more details see e.g.: IM&Savoy, ph/0211283]

Im (LLmlRR)eem10-

5

No canc: pr lim in mSugra in susy region preferred by gwith tg=10No canc: pr lim in mSugra in susy region preferred by gwith tg=10

LFV exp’s are testing the rad !!!

a-term and FV a-term and FV ’s a source of ’s a source of EDMEDM

2) GUTs: c + HT

= (0) +(rad)

radiatively induced running from MPl

to msusy by FV&CPV YUKAWAS of Heavy States

in soft masses at MPl

Assume INHIBITION mechanism at work

(e.g.mSUGRA)

What about EDM exp’s ?

1) See-Saw: c

a = a(0) + a(rad)

Heavy colored Higgs Triplets (inducing p-decay)

e.g. in SU(5):

LSS = cYHDu+ cMRc

At low energy

Dirac -Yukawa coupling

c mass matrix

See-Saw

[RomaninoStrumia; EllisHisanoLolaRaidalShimizu; MSavoy; FarzanPeskin; ….]

See-Saw See-Saw cc-deg-deg

LFV: at 1° order

Mew

YY

(basis Ye=diag)

-> go at 4° order

a negligible effect…

needsIm(non-herm)ii

[’86 BorzumatiMasiero] strong impact on

SS models!

deg->hier : EDM get STRONGLY enhanced, LFV not

EDM

Solve RGE approx

1 >>

[’03 IM]FC: at 2° order

dominant for tg>10

See-Saw See-Saw cc-hier-hierew M2 M3M1

YY

=1,2,3

EDM

=(C k)ij

[’01 EllisHisanoLolaRaidalShimizu]FV: at 3° order

[formulae written as in IM&Savoy, ph/0501166]

tg3

LFV: at 1° order

Solve RGE approx

strong impact on

SS models!

[’03 IM]FC: at 2° order

ew M2 M3M1

YY

EDM[’01 EllisHisanoLolaRaidalShimizu]

FV: at 3° order

See-Saw See-Saw cc-hier-hier

dSSe 1/2x10-27ecm

g-2 region with tg=20

below planned…

At hand! Strong SS-model

dependence

dSS 10-25ecm

LFV: at 1° order

=1,2,3

=(C k)ij

Solve RGE approx

strong impact on

SS models!

See-Saw + minSU(5)

[BarbieriHallStrumia; Hisano&ManyManyJapanese; ….]

See-See-Saw+mSU(5)Saw+mSU(5)

LFV at 1° order:

ew

YYMk

MT YYTT

not changed

EDM

not significant (now)

= C

ij

FC: at 2° order

same as only See-Saw

FV: at 2° order

fromUcT Yu

T EcT HTu

tg

[’03 IM]

MIXED

†

See-See-Saw+mSU(5)Saw+mSU(5)

LFV at 1° order:

even w/c-deg ew

YYMk

MT YYTT

not changed

EDM

= C

ij

FC: at 2° order FV: at 2° order

fromUcT Yu

T EcT HTu

tg

[’03 IM]

†

g region , tg=20 MT=2x1016 GeV

M3=1015 GeV

dSS5 5x10-25ecm

dSS5e 10-25ecm

below planned…

Im (e-iC13)< 0.1ABOVE present!

not significant (now)

More realistic GUTs

N.B. minSU(5) ruled out by p-decay induced by HT

e.g. in SO(10) p-decay rate can be suppressed by introducing more Higgs triplets with particular mass matrix

[IM&Savoy, hep-ph/0309067]

What predictions for de ?

( that requires MT >> MGUT )

Introduce:

u-quarks & Dirac- Yu = Y d-quarks & ch-lept Yd = Ye

Masses of DOUBLETS TRIPLETS

r<1

(as D-W!)

Semi-Realistic S0(10)Semi-Realistic S0(10)

Fermion Masses T-Yukawas determined

(splitting problem)

x MGUT

deg

?cpD

From d=5 op generated by TRIPLET exchange

p K+ de

[’82: Weinberg, Sakai, Yanagida, ... ]

vs

p depends A LOT on MT –

structure

p [yrs]

rdeg

cpD(ambiguity

due to phases of

GUT origin)

deg: KO cpD: SAFE g region& tg=3

OUT

From d=5 op generated by TRIPLET exchange

p K+ de

[’82: Weinberg, Sakai, Yanagida, ... ]

vs

With (naturally) O(1) phase:

p depends A LOT on MT –

structurede INSENSITIVE to MT –structure

p [yrs]

rdeg

cpD(ambiguity

due to phases of

GUT origin)

r

deg

cpD

de [ecm]

g region& tg=3

From RGE where contributions of the many heavy states sum up

Complementary in constraining SUSY GUTs

OUT

OUT

deg: KO cpD: SAFE

May happen in L-R symm GUT models [see: ’00 BabuDuttaMohapatra]

In this model d < planned

When d > planned ?

Outlook

Even thought it is interesting to compare their sensitivities by considering just ONE CPV source (like

Arg in SUSY) in general EDMs probe many different CPV sources

in particular SUSY

EDMs are effective probes of TeV-scale NP beyond SM

This is the case for RGE-induced LEDMs where CPV sources are Heavy State’s

Yukawas See-Saw: EDMs generically below exp

sensitivityGUTs: EDMs possibly at hand

Planned EDM exp’s have a strong impact on susy/seesaw/GUTs